San Jose Christian College v. Morgan Hill
| Citation | 360 F.3d 1024 |
| Decision Date | 08 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-15693.,02-15693. |
| Parties | SAN JOSE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation of the State of California; Dennis Kennedy; Larry Carr; Steve Tate; Hedy L. Chang; Greg Sellers, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
John L. Dodd (argued), Tustin, California; William B. Clayton, Jr., Clayton & McEvoy, P.C., San Jose, California; Brad Dacus, June Jantz, Pacific Justice Institute, Citrus Heights, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.
John A. Ramirez (argued), Jeffrey T. Melching, Rutan & Tucker, LLP, Costa Mesa, California; Helene L. Leichter, City Attorney, City of Morgan Hill, for the defendants-appellees.
Geoffrey L. Robinson, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Walnut Creek, California; Michael S. Giaimo, Robinson & Cole, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for amicus curiae American Planning Association.
Roman P. Storzer, Kevin J. Hasson, Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., Christine Lockhart, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Various Christian, Jewish and Muslim Organizations.
Amy Greyson, T. Peter Pierce, Richards, Watson & Gershon, Brea, California, for amici curiae City of Alameda and Sixty-One Other California Cities and Towns.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-20857-RMW(PVT).
Before: William C. CANBY, JR., ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit JOHNNIE B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Rawlinson.
The clash between land use regulations and religiously-affiliated landowners continues. In this case, the City of Morgan Hill ("the City") denied a re-zoning application submitted by San Jose Christian College ("College"). Because we conclude that the City's determination did not violate College's right to the free exercise of religion, or otherwise run afoul of the Constitution, we AFFIRM the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City.1
The City approved a conditional use permit authorizing the construction of St. Louise Hospital on a site "designated and zoned for low density multi-family residential development." The City subsequently "chang[ed] the land use designation on the St. Louise property (`the Property') from Multi-family Low Residential to Public Facilities."2 The City ultimately re zoned the Property as a Planned Unit Development ("PUD"), thereby "eliminat[ing] the need for the use permit" and allowing use of the Property as a hospital, with fewer restrictions.
The Property is the only location within Morgan Hill actually zoned for hospital use. Under the City's municipal code, however, "[a]ll uses may be permitted in a PUD district, provided such uses are shown on the development plan for a particular PUD district as approved by the city council." MHMC § 18.30.020. Because the development plan for the PUD district in which the Property was located was directed solely at hospital use, College filed an application with the City seeking an "approval of zoning amendment to change the allowable uses on the property from a hospital and supporting medical facilities to an educational facility." A cover letter detailed College's intent to use "the site and buildings as a private college, and to allow the addition of new facilities to serve the college." The cover letter further informed the City of anticipated "new uses such as outdoor sports fields, a gymnasium, a theater/chapel, and student resident hall(s)." College later submitted a "Statement of Operations," reiterating its "hopes and expectations for future growth at this new facility" with the "ultimate goal" to have "around 1200 students attending the College, but that will be in a perhaps 20 year time-frame." College also expressed its concern that its "projections of growth during the timeframes indicated[] not become imbedded in the zoning approval."
Upon receipt and review of the initial application "for completeness and accuracy of filing," the City informed College that its application was "incomplete," and outlined "the additional information needed to make the application complete." In a subsequent communication, the City informed College of the need to submit the following information, pursuant to MHMC § 18.30.050:
1. Site plan: Indicate landscape areas, easements and storm water detention areas. Please note that the PUD ordinance requires a minimum of 30 ft. wide landscape buffer.
2. Illustrative building elevations: The illustrative elevations shall indicate the level of architectural detail and quality.
3. Landscaping: A conceptual landscape plan needs to indicate the areas of existing landscaping and areas of proposed landscaping. The plan shall also identify the major types of plant material to be used (e.g., The species of trees and parking lot trees to be used, species of shrubbery to be used to screen parking lots, etc.).
The City's letter also requested further information regarding the use of the Property, including the number of night classes College planned to provide; the number and hours for its proposed evening sporting events as well as any large events, and whether these events would overlap with peak classroom use; whether "the 300-400 people anticipated for Sunday service in the gym" would "include the students residing on site," or reflected "people coming in from off-site"; proposed expansions; the location and detail of the lighting proposed for "the `future' outdoor sports field" and the number of bleachers; and how many seats College's proposed theater/chapel would contain — 500 or 1500.
Some of this information was required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), which is designed "to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities[.]" San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Stanislaus County, 42 Cal.App.4th 608, 614, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 494 (1996). The City has incorporated CEQA into its zoning code. See MHMC § 18.70 et seq.
In lieu of providing a second application describing more fully the intended uses of the Property, and allegedly at the behest of the city manager, College presented a "scaled back" version of its initial application, encompassing the existing buildings only. The cover letter to the "scaled back" application indicated that College, at that time, did "not have a clear enough picture of [its] future facility needs to provide the information [the City] requested." The revised "Statement of Operations" reflected only 140 residents, and eliminated mention of the gymnasium, outdoor sports field, field house, and chapel/theater uses. A revised "Environmental Initial Study" stated College's intent to enroll a maximum of 400 students, rather than the 1,200 initially mentioned.
Meanwhile, College circulated two editions of its Broadcaster publication. The Spring 2000 Broadcaster communicated to its readers College's goals to "add a chapel/gym facility and additional housing." The Spring Broadcaster also indicated that there was "adequate space for playing fields and future expansion." The Winter 2000 Broadcaster reiterated that the Property "would allow the college to grow to at least quadruple from its current size of about 400 students." The Planning Commission took notice of these communications, and their apparent conflict with College's representations.
Sometime prior to the time College submitted its "scaled back" application, the City "endorsed the concept of a community health care foundation, or some other mechanism, to provide an institutional focus on meeting the policy objectives for medical services." The City formed a seven-person "Blue Ribbon Task Force on Community Health Care," the purpose of which was to explore "the medical care needs of the community of Morgan Hill, review[] proposals made to the city and discover[] how to meet the need." After considering testimony of community residents and several proposals regarding the establishment of a medical care facility in the city, the task force verified the urgent need for a hospital in the community and recommended that the Property remain zoned for hospital use.
The City's staff disagreed with the task force's recommendation, observing that "there are no specific policies that say that the property in question must be used exclusively for a hospital," and that "the public facilities designation which is presently on the site would allow ... public, private educational facilities, and therefore, the use is consistent in that respect." Despite these positive comments, the Planning Commission recommended denial of College's re-zoning application.
The City denied College's re-zoning application due to College's failure to comply with the City's application requirements.
College subsequently filed a complaint and requested injunctive relief on the basis that the City's zoning process violated the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. After the district court denied College's request for a preliminary injunction, the City filed a motion for summary judgment.
The district court granted the City's motion, and College timely filed a notice of appeal to this court. On appeal, College contends that the district court's grant of summary judgment was improper because: (1) the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining the validity of College's free exercise claim; (2) College successfully demonstrated the existence of a "hybrid" claim; (3) the district court applied "old" and "inapplicable" free exercise law to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buckley v. Alameida
...policy is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Doc. 126-1 at 34, 36 (MSJ) (citing San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004)). Defendants further argue that a RLUIPA claim seeking monetary damages against defendants in their off......
-
Couch v. Jabe, Civil Action No. 7:05cv00642.
...or onus upon such exercise." Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir.2004)). Finally, the Eleventh Circuit has held that a substantial burden is one that results "from pressure that tends......
-
Smith v. Dunn
...to significantly modify his religious behavior and significantly violate his religious beliefs"); San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill , 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004) (defining substantial burden as an "oppressive" and "significantly great restriction or onus upon [religiou......
-
Every Nation Campus Ministries v. Achtenberg
...if it does not `in a selective manner impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.'" San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1031 (9th Cir.2004), quoting Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533, 543, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 12......
-
Making Sense of Hybrid Rights: an Analysis of the Nebraska Supreme Court's Approach to the Hybrid-rights Exception in Douglas County v. Anaya
...test in deciding whether or not the hybrid-rights exception applies) San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2004) (same). The original Thomasopinion was vacated when the Ninth Circuit, rehearing the case en banc, found that the case was not yet ripe f......
-
Thou Shalt Not Zone: the Overbroad Applications and Troubling Implications of Rluipa's Land Use Provisions
...zone did not violate RLUIPA because the denial did not prevent the church's members from observing their religious tenets). 106. 360 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 107. Id. at 1027. 108. Id. at 1028. 109. Id. at 1029. 110. Id. 111. Id. at 1035-36. 112. Id. The court relied on the dictionary for its de......
-
Free Exercise and Substantial Burdens Under Federal Law
...342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied,541 U.S. 1096 (2004)). 411. Id. (citing San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 412. Id. at 568-69 (citing Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004), cert. denied,54......
-
And congress said, "let there be religious land use": a RLUIPA primer.
...2d 1203, 1222-24 (C.D. Cal. 2002). See also Midrash Sephardi, 366 F.3d 1214. But see San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2004); Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 764 (7th Cir. 2003). (18) But see Alpine Christi......